"Blizzard seeks to protect the sanctity of the StarCraft II gaming experience."

Blizzard Entertainment has filed a lawsuit alleging that the ValiantChaos MapHack (VCMH) infringes on the company’s copyright for StarCraft II. The hack appears to allow its users to detect invisible enemy units and observe previously unknown parts of the map among other things.

“Unfortunately, the gaming experience of legitimate players of StarCraft II is under near constant attack by cheaters, scammers, and other wrongdoers seeking to exploit StarCraft II for their own illegitimate ends," the company states in its suit. "For this reason, Blizzard seeks to protect the sanctity of the StarCraft II gaming experience through both technical and contractual measures.

“Defendants’ VCMH program, among other things, permits its user to view areas of the game ‘map’ that are normally obscured, to monitor the other player’s unit movements, and to access other information that normally is not available to the player. VCMH also automates certain tasks within the game. These gameplay changes give the player using VCMH a significant competitive advantage over others.”

Further Reading

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Los Angeles earlier this week, names “John Does 1-10” as defendants. It does not even name a website or entity. A Google search for “ValiantChaos MapHack” points to Valiantchaos.net, which is owned by one Troy Mason of Stafford, Queensland, Australia. Each copy of the VCMH seems to be for sale for A$62.50 ($57).

A history of victory

In the past, Blizzard has been quite litigious against those that seek to modify its games in some way.

Famously, MDY, the maker of the authorized Glider bot used in World of Warcraft, asked the court for a declaratory judgment that its product did not infringe on Blizzard’s intellectual property rights. But MDY lost, having initially won a judgment of $6 million, which was later upped to $6.5 million in 2011 following a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Blizzard was also successful in a 2005 case called Davidson & Associates v. Jung, where a Battle.net alternative, the “bnetd project,” was found to infringe against the company’s intellectual property.

Given this history, it may be relatively easy to unmask the unknown creators of VCMH by subpoenaing Web hosts or ISPs, according to Jessica Litman, a law professor at the University of Michigan.

“They [would] need to show a decent chance of prevailing [to unmask the John Doe defendants], and given that all the cases before have gone Blizzard’s way, it’s pretty likely that a court would order those folks identified,” she told Ars.

I imagine Blizzard will implement a way to block this program from working for those who already bought it.

One of the key selling points of VCMH is that it bypasses Blizzard's Warden protection system, thus avoiding the blocks. So, they're in an arms race already, but decided to fire an additional legal salvo to stop these guys.

I imagine Blizzard will implement a way to block this program from working for those who already bought it.

One of the key selling points of VCMH is that it bypasses Blizzard's Warden protection system, thus avoiding the blocks. So, they're in an arms race already, but decided to fire an additional legal salvo to stop these guys.

First, its against terms of service. So anyone caught using it can (and probably should) be banned for the good of the gaming ecosystem.

Second, these guys are not just giving the code away and letting the users take the ban-hammer risk, they're actively profiting from it. If there was no money changing hands, Blizzard would probably have been content to continue the block/workaround/block pattern with them. Once money was involved, they pulled out the big guns and are going for the throat. I note that they're not suing end users of the cheat (they just get the ban-hammer), but the developers themselves.

Third, if they didn't take this kind of action on a game that has tournaments and real prize money on the line, then I'd expect many more cheats like this coming on the market. Then the entire game devolves into a pay-to-win (which Blizzard has been actively trying to avoid - see the Diablo 3 marketplace shutdown as an example).

I appreciate the effort Blizzard puts in to protecting their games from hacking. I don't see how this could influence tournaments. Don't all the big tournaments have players on the tournament owned computers? Maybe the smaller tournaments and challenger level of WCS have players on their personal computers (correct me if I'm wrong). Otherwise, this could influence ladder significantly. People on ladder don't need any other excuses for their losses (they already come up with many, often incorrectly).

As if we don't see this is a marketing move aimed at lead us to believe people still play Starcraft. </sarcasm>

Nothing Blizzard came up with after being acquired by Activision peeked my interest. SC2 in particular I don't get: why would anyone pay $60 for a few additional units in multiplayer? I get that there's a single player campaign, too, but SC has always been about multiplayer above all else. I'm in the minority and enjoy SP player, but the SC2 didn't convince me at all. The cinematics look worse than the cinematics in the first SC (has anyone forgotten about the zealot turning around to see a hydralisk sneaking up on him, only to have his warp blades malfunction?). But I digress.

I agree that Blizzard's efforts since the release of Warcraft 3 have been quite derivative. That said, there's a market for franchises that are totally formulaic - why do you think we're getting Fast and Furious 6,7,8,9...? People like the known, and Blizzard makes a ton of money off slightly tweaking the stuff people already know. I'd be curious to see what they do with a completely new world and lore set - they haven't done anything like that in forever (even Heroes of the Storm and Hearthstone use their existing characters in a slightly different way so they don't have to invent backstory).

I was all set to mock Blizzard's use of the word "sanctity" in conjunction with a game. (A more appropriate word would have been "integrity"). But I have absolutely no problem with them nuking these guys, any more than I have a problem with steroid-using athletes getting suspended without pay, and the people supplying them getting prosecuted.

I was all set to mock Blizzard's use of the word "sanctity" in conjunction with a game. (A more appropriate word would have been "integrity"). But I have absolutely no problem with them nuking these guys, any more than I have a problem with steroid-using athletes getting suspended without pay, and the people supplying them getting prosecuted.

This is an abuse of copyright law. The 'maphack' simply reads the data sent to a person's client. This is a flaw in Blizzard's design that has been a known issue for years.

According to people familiar with the maphack, it injects itself into the process at runtime, meaning the only place it infringes in Blizzard's copyright is in RAM. Making transient copies of copyrighted software (read, how every piece of software works, ever) has been found to not be infringing.

There is no precedent for what Blizzard is asking for. They're covering up their own shit programming with litigation, which is pathetic and repulsive.

Edit: I'm suggesting RAM is a copyright-free zone. There have been court cases to that effect, reasoning that either fair use demands that outcome, or because the software is designed to be copied in the way software-to-RAM copying occurs.

Blizzard's previous victories don't have a lot of overlap with this hack.

This is an abuse of copyright law. The 'maphack' simply reads the data sent to a person's client. This is a flaw in Blizzard's design that has been a known issue for years.

According to people familiar with the maphack, it injects itself into the process at runtime, meaning the only place it infringes in Blizzard's copyright is in RAM. Making transient copies of copyrighted software (read, how every piece of software works, ever) has been found to not be infringing.

There is no precedent for what Blizzard is asking for. They're covering up their own shit programming with litigation, which is pathetic and repulsive.

If you read the actual complaint, copyright infringement is only one of several things they're using to go after these guys. I agree that argument is not the strongest (and they will probably lose their argument on that point). However, they do reference the DMCA prohibitions on circumventing a copy-protection tool (Warden) and they use that as their second argument. It's a much stronger case on that.

Sounds like a typical case brought by a pro lawyer - throw the book at em, and hope to win on at least one point of the suit. You only lose if the defendants deflect the entire attack, not just one bullet.

This is an abuse of copyright law. The 'maphack' simply reads the data sent to a person's client. This is a flaw in Blizzard's design that has been a known issue for years.

According to people familiar with the maphack, it injects itself into the process at runtime, meaning the only place it infringes in Blizzard's copyright is in RAM. Making transient copies of copyrighted software (read, how every piece of software works, ever) has been found to not be infringing.

There is no precedent for what Blizzard is asking for. They're covering up their own shit programming with litigation, which is pathetic and repulsive.

From the previous ruling on Glider, using the cheat violates the terms of use, which means that running Blizzard's software and the cheat at the same time (which requires copying it to RAM) violates Blizzard's copyright, since you lose the license by running the cheat.

It's kind of a bullshit argument, IMO, but it does mean Blizzard has legal precedent on their side from the previous win.

This is an abuse of copyright law. The 'maphack' simply reads the data sent to a person's client. This is a flaw in Blizzard's design that has been a known issue for years.

According to people familiar with the maphack, it injects itself into the process at runtime, meaning the only place it infringes in Blizzard's copyright is in RAM. Making transient copies of copyrighted software (read, how every piece of software works, ever) has been found to not be infringing.

There is no precedent for what Blizzard is asking for. They're covering up their own shit programming with litigation, which is pathetic and repulsive.

From the previous ruling on Glider, using the cheat violates the terms of use, which means that running Blizzard's software and the cheat at the same time (which requires copying it to RAM) violates Blizzard's copyright, since you lose the license by running the cheat.

It's kind of a bullshit argument, IMO, but it does mean Blizzard has legal precedent on their side from the previous win.

I don't think the TOS violation was sustained on copyright grounds, was it? They could have brought CFAA claim under that, though. Glider pre-dates my legal literacy.

This is an abuse of copyright law. The 'maphack' simply reads the data sent to a person's client. This is a flaw in Blizzard's design that has been a known issue for years.

According to people familiar with the maphack, it injects itself into the process at runtime, meaning the only place it infringes in Blizzard's copyright is in RAM. Making transient copies of copyrighted software (read, how every piece of software works, ever) has been found to not be infringing.

There is no precedent for what Blizzard is asking for. They're covering up their own shit programming with litigation, which is pathetic and repulsive.

If you read the actual complaint, copyright infringement is only one of several things they're using to go after these guys. I agree that argument is not the strongest (and they will probably lose their argument on that point). However, they do reference the DMCA prohibitions on circumventing a copy-protection tool (Warden) and they use that as their second argument. It's a much stronger case on that.

Sounds like a typical case brought by a pro lawyer - throw the book at em, and hope to win on at least one point of the suit. You only lose if the defendants deflect the entire attack, not just one bullet.

I still think the mechanics of the hack will preclude a successful DMCA claim. You aren't circumventing anything, you're reading what the anti-circumvention device is providing you with.

I really hope a competent lawyer is able to address this. Be nice if the EFF got involved.

I was all set to mock Blizzard's use of the word "sanctity" in conjunction with a game. (A more appropriate word would have been "integrity"). But I have absolutely no problem with them nuking these guys, any more than I have a problem with steroid-using athletes getting suspended without pay, and the people supplying them getting prosecuted.

As much as I have no enthusiasm for the game cheat salesmen, I have the unpleasant feeling that this is one of those cases where bad precedent is being set (or reinforced, since Blizzard has done this sort of thing before).

What does a suitably robust cheat tool need to do? Evade/bypass any local anti-tamper programs and, to the degree necessary, potentially implement some amount of protocol-interoperable interaction with the server (if architectural necessity has it, possibly even locally spoofing some 'server' components).

That's pretty much what, say, a 3rd party attempt to revive a dead walled-garden multiplayer system would need to do (Oh, wait, Blizzard already nuked bnetd into a smoking crater...) or do a variety of other, much less villainous, things in the area of 3rd party servers, emulation, and so on.

The fact that these particular cheat salesmen are scum doesn't change the fact that the point of law Blizzard will be thumping (once the 'sanctity' puff paragraph is finished) will be one that excludes broad classes of activity on your own computer in favor of copyright over an executable becoming something unnervingly close to permanent control of the context it runs in.

Is it Blizzard's copyright? Sure. Is it more than a trifle creepy that they assert control over the transient bits and pieces that live in RAM while somebody is executing it? Sure.

This is an abuse of copyright law. The 'maphack' simply reads the data sent to a person's client. This is a flaw in Blizzard's design that has been a known issue for years.

According to people familiar with the maphack, it injects itself into the process at runtime, meaning the only place it infringes in Blizzard's copyright is in RAM. Making transient copies of copyrighted software (read, how every piece of software works, ever) has been found to not be infringing.

There is no precedent for what Blizzard is asking for. They're covering up their own shit programming with litigation, which is pathetic and repulsive.

If you read the actual complaint, copyright infringement is only one of several things they're using to go after these guys. I agree that argument is not the strongest (and they will probably lose their argument on that point). However, they do reference the DMCA prohibitions on circumventing a copy-protection tool (Warden) and they use that as their second argument. It's a much stronger case on that.

Sounds like a typical case brought by a pro lawyer - throw the book at em, and hope to win on at least one point of the suit. You only lose if the defendants deflect the entire attack, not just one bullet.

I still think the mechanics of the hack will preclude a successful DMCA claim. You aren't circumventing anything, you're reading what the anti-circumvention device is providing you with.

I don't think a court is going to look kindly on an argument that acknowledges using an anti-circumvention device in the first place. Courts really dive into the technical minutia unless they have to, least of all because they rarely understand it.

I was all set to mock Blizzard's use of the word "sanctity" in conjunction with a game. (A more appropriate word would have been "integrity"). But I have absolutely no problem with them nuking these guys, any more than I have a problem with steroid-using athletes getting suspended without pay, and the people supplying them getting prosecuted.

As much as I have no enthusiasm for the game cheat salesmen, I have the unpleasant feeling that this is one of those cases where bad precedent is being set (or reinforced, since Blizzard has done this sort of thing before).

Is it Blizzard's copyright? Sure. Is it more than a trifle creepy that they assert control over the transient bits and pieces that live in RAM while somebody is executing it? Sure.

The legal consequence would be a precedent that people don't have a right to understand the information being sent to their computers. Imagine a world where bitshark is illegal because it might pick up some information an IP owner doesn't want you to know is being sent to your computer? Disgusting.

As if we don't see this is a marketing move aimed at lead us to believe people still play Starcraft. </sarcasm>

Nothing Blizzard came up with after being acquired by Activision peeked my interest. SC2 in particular I don't get: why would anyone pay $60 for a few additional units in multiplayer? I get that there's a single player campaign, too, but SC has always been about multiplayer above all else. I'm in the minority and enjoy SP player, but the SC2 didn't convince me at all. The cinematics look worse than the cinematics in the first SC (has anyone forgotten about the zealot turning around to see a hydralisk sneaking up on him, only to have his warp blades malfunction?). But I digress.

The expansion pack retail price was $40, and most retailers were selling it for around $30-35. Blizzard and Amazon occasionally have it on sale for $10-20.

They've stuck with the old model of "Expansion Packs" instead of DLC.

I got both WoL and HotS for $35 total. Unless you're really into SC2, you don't have to buy everything immediately at full retail price.

Everybody has their own opinion on games, but I happened to like the SC2 SP mode.

One thing I noticed about the cinematics though, WoL was rendered in real-time while HotS was pre-rendered.

Oh whats that you say blizzard? bnetd violated your copyright too? Back when you were unable to keep any battlenet server running. Yah ok... me thinks that's not how copyright works.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Copyright doesn't apply to only things that work. It applies to everything, regardless of whether it functions or not. The most stable and elegant piece of code on the planet is afforded the same protections as a spider-web of nasty broken code that never gives you the right answer. If someone fixes your broken-ass code, you can sue them and win. Yay lawyers!

I see why Blizzard is pulling the guns out here and I agree with the reasons. Cheat software for a game that's played on a professional level is damaging to the game pretty easily and quickly. And if it is even sold for cash, there's no excuse in the direction of doing it for fun or whatever.It's selling cheats. And that's business endangering asshattery in my book.

The thing I'm not so sure about is if copyright is the right angle of attack and if a, if not noble, then sane, cause might set a dangerous precedence. From what I gather, the way this hack works is for one half abusing bad/lazy design on Blizzard's end. If this somehow ends in the direction of making any interference with a running program in memory something that can be prohibited by copyright, this could get difficult.

I would like Blizzard to win this, but please, for the right reasons and without leaving another copyright tripmine related to software.

I was all set to mock Blizzard's use of the word "sanctity" in conjunction with a game. (A more appropriate word would have been "integrity"). But I have absolutely no problem with them nuking these guys, any more than I have a problem with steroid-using athletes getting suspended without pay, and the people supplying them getting prosecuted.

As much as I have no enthusiasm for the game cheat salesmen, I have the unpleasant feeling that this is one of those cases where bad precedent is being set (or reinforced, since Blizzard has done this sort of thing before).

What does a suitably robust cheat tool need to do? Evade/bypass any local anti-tamper programs and, to the degree necessary, potentially implement some amount of protocol-interoperable interaction with the server (if architectural necessity has it, possibly even locally spoofing some 'server' components).

That's pretty much what, say, a 3rd party attempt to revive a dead walled-garden multiplayer system would need to do (Oh, wait, Blizzard already nuked bnetd into a smoking crater...) or do a variety of other, much less villainous, things in the area of 3rd party servers, emulation, and so on.

The fact that these particular cheat salesmen are scum doesn't change the fact that the point of law Blizzard will be thumping (once the 'sanctity' puff paragraph is finished) will be one that excludes broad classes of activity on your own computer in favor of copyright over an executable becoming something unnervingly close to permanent control of the context it runs in.

Is it Blizzard's copyright? Sure. Is it more than a trifle creepy that they assert control over the transient bits and pieces that live in RAM while somebody is executing it? Sure.

You cannot be successfully sued for copyright violations when you're (a) running the program (ie, copy to RAM and execute the code), or (b) making a backup. This is known as a 117 defense. However, this is only true if you are properly licensed. Violation of ToS means the license is revoked, and any further copying to RAM is then a copyright violation (I agree it's stupid, but hey - that's the finer points of the law for you).

Just remember the words of Dr. Seuss... a copy is a copy no matter how small. And you owe a hundred grand for each and every one of them all.

I was all set to mock Blizzard's use of the word "sanctity" in conjunction with a game. (A more appropriate word would have been "integrity"). But I have absolutely no problem with them nuking these guys, any more than I have a problem with steroid-using athletes getting suspended without pay, and the people supplying them getting prosecuted.

As much as I have no enthusiasm for the game cheat salesmen, I have the unpleasant feeling that this is one of those cases where bad precedent is being set (or reinforced, since Blizzard has done this sort of thing before).

What does a suitably robust cheat tool need to do? Evade/bypass any local anti-tamper programs and, to the degree necessary, potentially implement some amount of protocol-interoperable interaction with the server (if architectural necessity has it, possibly even locally spoofing some 'server' components).

That's pretty much what, say, a 3rd party attempt to revive a dead walled-garden multiplayer system would need to do (Oh, wait, Blizzard already nuked bnetd into a smoking crater...) or do a variety of other, much less villainous, things in the area of 3rd party servers, emulation, and so on.

The fact that these particular cheat salesmen are scum doesn't change the fact that the point of law Blizzard will be thumping (once the 'sanctity' puff paragraph is finished) will be one that excludes broad classes of activity on your own computer in favor of copyright over an executable becoming something unnervingly close to permanent control of the context it runs in.

Is it Blizzard's copyright? Sure. Is it more than a trifle creepy that they assert control over the transient bits and pieces that live in RAM while somebody is executing it? Sure.

You cannot be successfully sued for copyright violations when you're (a) running the program (ie, copy to RAM and execute the code), or (b) making a backup. This is known as a 117 defense. However, this is only true if you are properly licensed. Violation of ToS means the license is revoked, and any further copying to RAM is then a copyright violation (I agree it's stupid, but hey - that's the finer points of the law for you).

Just remember the words of Dr. Seuss... a copy is a copy no matter how small. And you owe a hundred grand for each and every one of them all.

Battle.net TOS:

Quote:

The license granted to you in Section 1 is subject to the limitations set forth in Sections 1 and 2 (collectively, the “License Limitations”). Any use of the Service or any Game in violation of the License Limitations [b]will be regarded as a breach of this Agreement and an infringement of Blizzard’s copyrights[b] in and to the Service and/or Game. You agree that you will not, under any circumstances:...use any unauthorized third-party software that intercepts, “mines”, or otherwise collects information from or through any Game or the Service, including without limitation [b]any software that reads areas of RAM used by any Game or the Service to store information about a character or a Game environment[b]; provided, however, that Blizzard may, at its sole and absolute discretion, allow the use of certain third party user interfaces;

The TOS is legally incorrect. It posits that the above is a violation of Blizzard's copyright. Licenses are always revocable, but you can't term a breach of license as a copyright violation. Copyright, in no universe, should allow Blizzard to have exclusive control over information that they voluntarily provided to you and that currently resides on your computer.

I can run a memtest variant while SC2 is loaded into my computer's memory. If Blizzard doesn't like it, too bad. They can revoke my license, but they can't create a line of precedence different from the judicial precedence to find that my examination of RAM was copyright infringement.

This is an abuse of copyright law. The 'maphack' simply reads the data sent to a person's client. This is a flaw in Blizzard's design that has been a known issue for years.

According to people familiar with the maphack, it injects itself into the process at runtime, meaning the only place it infringes in Blizzard's copyright is in RAM. Making transient copies of copyrighted software (read, how every piece of software works, ever) has been found to not be infringing.

There is no precedent for what Blizzard is asking for. They're covering up their own shit programming with litigation, which is pathetic and repulsive.

Edit: I'm suggesting RAM is a copyright-free zone. There have been court cases to that effect, reasoning that either fair use demands that outcome, or because the software is designed to be copied in the way software-to-RAM copying occurs.

Blizzard's previous victories don't have a lot of overlap with this hack.

I've seen this argument pop up a few times now, if you read the actual complaint however you'll see how they claim the hack's requirement of the copyrighted SC2 client to run (and it's use of SC2 branding and popularity in order to sell) make it a derivative work.

They aren't claiming the code contained in the hack is copyrighted by them, although they do mention them illegally reverse engineering the copyrighted client to create the hacks, but they are definitely profiting from Blizzard's IP and IMHO it should certainly be covered by copyright.

I mean, it's kind of analogous to Symantec reverse engineering aspects of McAfee anti-virus and then selling people "alternative anti-virus definition subscriptions" or some such. You'd expect a shitstorm, right? Why should it be any different here?

I was all set to mock Blizzard's use of the word "sanctity" in conjunction with a game. (A more appropriate word would have been "integrity"). But I have absolutely no problem with them nuking these guys, any more than I have a problem with steroid-using athletes getting suspended without pay, and the people supplying them getting prosecuted.

I appreciate the effort Blizzard puts in to protecting their games from hacking. I don't see how this could influence tournaments. Don't all the big tournaments have players on the tournament owned computers? Maybe the smaller tournaments and challenger level of WCS have players on their personal computers (correct me if I'm wrong). Otherwise, this could influence ladder significantly. People on ladder don't need any other excuses for their losses (they already come up with many, often incorrectly).

Many tournaments hold online qualifiers. People have used maphacks to qualify for tournaments before. Sure they haven't shown, but qualification usually means a free holiday at the very least and frequently prize money as well.

I've seen this argument pop up a few times now, if you read the actual complaint however you'll see how they claim the hack's requirement of the copyrighted SC2 client to run (and it's use of SC2 branding and popularity in order to sell) make it a derivative work.

Wouldn't that mean that any plugins or extensions are derivative works? Or indeed any program that runs on an operating system?

As if we don't see this is a marketing move aimed at lead us to believe people still play Starcraft. </sarcasm>

Nothing Blizzard came up with after being acquired by Activision peeked my interest. SC2 in particular I don't get: why would anyone pay $60 for a few additional units in multiplayer? I get that there's a single player campaign, too, but SC has always been about multiplayer above all else. I'm in the minority and enjoy SP player, but the SC2 didn't convince me at all. The cinematics look worse than the cinematics in the first SC (has anyone forgotten about the zealot turning around to see a hydralisk sneaking up on him, only to have his warp blades malfunction?). But I digress.

I agree that Blizzard's efforts since the release of Warcraft 3 have been quite derivative. That said, there's a market for franchises that are totally formulaic - why do you think we're getting Fast and Furious 6,7,8,9...? People like the known, and Blizzard makes a ton of money off slightly tweaking the stuff people already know. I'd be curious to see what they do with a completely new world and lore set - they haven't done anything like that in forever (even Heroes of the Storm and Hearthstone use their existing characters in a slightly different way so they don't have to invent backstory).

Well, derivative I can understand. But Warcraft was turned into a MMO (and, as an exception went on to become the most successful MMO ever), Starcraft was somewhat derivative, but cut up into 3 pieces (with the allotted price hike) while Diablo was simply dumbed down into irrelevance. All of this served with a portion of "we're not selling you the game, you'll only play when and how we want it" always online DRM.